• Joshua Biro, Maya Rucks, David M Neyens, Sarah Coppola, James H Abernathy, and Ken R Catchpole.
• Department of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
• Br J Anaesth. 2022 Mar 1; 128 (3): 535545535-545.

AbstractLiterature focused on quantifying or reducing patient harm in anaesthesia uses a variety of labels and definitions to represent patient safety-related events, such as 'medication errors', 'adverse events', and 'critical incidents'. This review extracts and compares definitions of patient safety-related terminology in anaesthesia to examine the scope of this variability and inconsistencies. A structured review was performed in which 36 of the 769 articles reviewed met the inclusion criteria. Similar terms were grouped into six categories by similarities in keyword choice (Adverse Event, Critical Incident, Medication Error, Error, Near Miss, and Harm) and their definitions were broken down into three base components to allow for comparison. Our analysis found that the Medication Error category, which encompasses the greatest number of terms, had widely variant definitions which represent fundamentally different concepts. Definitions of terms within the other categories consistently represented relatively similar concepts, though key variations in wording remain. This inconsistency in terminology can lead to problems with synthesising, interpreting, and overall sensemaking in relation to anaesthesia medication safety. Guidance towards how 'medication errors' should be defined is provided, yet a definition will have little impact on the future of patient safety without organisations and journals taking the lead to promote, publish, and standardise definitions.Copyright © 2021 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…